When I was a child, it was my job to set the table for dinner. Yes, kiddiwinks,
we used to sit around the table, not the television, in the old days.
For a brief time, along with the cutlery and crockery I was told to include
a privet switch as part of the table-setting. My mother must have become
exasperated with her unproductive nagging about table manners. The blitz
didn't last all that long, but for the duration woe betide any child who
ate noisily, or with an open mouth, or had elbows on the table, or who
failed to pass on the pepper and salt unasked. There was no nagging anymore,
just a light sting on the forearm to remind the offender. We all paid
very close attention to our table manners, and consequently meal times
became pleasant again.

With forty years hindsight, I would regard my mother's behavior as eccentric.
But under proposed national law reforms being considered by the Australia's
attorneys-general, her actions would be regarded as criminal assault,
and she would be liable to a gaol sentence. So why are the nation's attorneys
general bothering themselves about such trivial domestic matters? Surely
there must be weightier matters of state demanding their attention?

Well it's the same old story: yet more intrusion into our daily lives
by the UN. In August 1990, Australia signed the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, and ratified it three months later. It seems a UN Committee
supervises each nation's compliance with the Convention by requiring reports,
and in August 1998 the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Treaties (JPCT)
released Australia's Report.

Over 630 submissions had been received, and the majority of them denounced
the Convention as an unwarranted interference in the family. Despite this,
the JPCT's report recommended the Convention be implemented in full. So
much for democracy in Australia. As a result, all existing federal and
state legislation, policies and practices must be reviewed to determine
their compliance with the Convention.

Consequently the parasitical bureaucracy continues to bloat: a Federal
Office for Children is to be established. Showing their blatant anti-parent
bias, the JPCT flatly rejected a proposal for an Office for the Family
because "the interests of the family and children do not always coincide,
and an office of the family may have a different focus and children may
not be given priority". As well, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission will probably be expanded, and worse, the Convention will be
taught in schools so the little darlings know their 'rights'. It's a pity
the schools don't teach the little darlings their responsibilities as
well.

The Report acknowledges that Articles 13-16 of the Convention may be
seen as undermining parental authority, but recommends a propaganda -
whoops - an education campaign to allay parental concern. Just look at
these doozy 'rights' which overpampered Western children have been granted,
while hundreds of millions of children worldwide lack basic education
or even clean water. It's typical of UN priorities, and telling evidence
that the organization ought to be given the chop.

Article 12 deals with the child's freedom of expression

Article 13 deals with the child's right to receive information

Article 14 deals with the child's right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion

Article 15 will make it difficult for parents to prevent their children
from associating with bad company

Article 16 claims a right to privacy.

Recommendation 43 spells out the "information programme" -ie
propaganda - necessary to promote alternative discipline, because Articles
19 and 37 of the Convention prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment" of children. Fair enough. But our social
engineers include the parental use of the wooden spoon or a switch as
"cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

In January 1997, a working group of the UN Committee asked the Australian
government to explain why it had not banned corporal punishment in Australian
homes. At the Paris meeting, the Australian delegates were adamant that
the Australian population would simply not accept a total ban on corporal
punishment. No problem. It will be accomplished in stages. As the first
step, the nation's attorneys general have proposed that parents be restricted
to using an open hand in the corporal punishment of their children. And
after a propaganda campaign against corporal punishment, it will then
become a criminal offense.

These proposals are not only a gross interference in family life, they
are plain stupid. A brutal adult could send a child flying with an open
hand. Yet under the proposed law 'reforms' this would be acceptable, while
a light smack with a wooden spoon or privet switch would be a criminal
offence.

For far too long now, various 'experts' of politically correct persuasions
have been allowed to get away with the mischief of equating the physical
chastisement of children with child abuse. In fact the two have absolutely
nothing in common. The first is usually mild, restrained, fair and has
beneficial results. The second is brutal, unrestrained, out of proportion
and has very bad results. Nobody approves of brutality to children, and
there are existing laws to punish offenders who ill-treat them. The proposed
'reforms' are nothing but yet another PC assault on the family and a groveling
to the UN.

Opponents of physical punishment of children indulge in some questionable
tactics in pursuit of their goal. Like feminists, they try to high jack
the language: 'punishing' a child is now 'beating' a child, though the
two words have quite different meanings. And they generate myths too.
For example they claim that physical punishment demonstrates ineffective
parenting because parents resort to 'violence' - another example of high
jacking the language.

A parent who continually smacked would indeed be demonstrating poor discipline,
but such a parent is a straw man. Most parents use a range of disciplinary
techniques, and some like to include the option of physical punishment
as a last resort. On an Internet discussion on corporal punishment of
children, a father related how five years ago he took his belt to two
of his children. They'd pushed too far - so he let them swiftly and painfully
find out what came after being sent to their rooms/being grounded/allowance
cut/denied TV etc. He said he has never had any trouble from them since.
The boundaries were set, his authority was reestablished, and there was
peace in the home.

Contrary to the mythmakers' assertions, but consonant with common sense,
physical punishment is rarely employed precisely because it is effective!
In any case, many of the suggested alternatives are worse. A deserved
belting over and done with is surely preferable to being 'grounded' for
two weeks. Surely it's a matter for parents to decide, not the government,
let alone the UN.

Another claim is that physical punishment results in psychological problems
and aggression: Hitler was beaten as a child, and look at him. Well, Hitler
was a vegetarian too. So what? The claim simply does not stand up. Increasingly
researchers are showing that other factors, such as the lack of warmth
and affection between parent and child, are far more important in psychological
disturbances than any physical punishment.

A few years ago there was a reunion at our local two-teacher primary
school. The highlight of the day for many ex-students was inspecting the
punishment book. Burly farmers, successful businessmen and women, people
who were now grandparents chortled and ribbed one another as they read
out the offences for which they had been punished so many years ago. They
had received between one and (never more than) six strokes of the cane
for fighting, swearing, messy work (!), smoking, throwing rocks, hitting
girls, insolence, etc. Now adults, they all had only the highest regard
for their teachers. Far from banning corporal punishment of children,
perhaps it ought to be re-instated if it produced such well-adjusted,
successful and cheerful adults.

In homes where they are used, the wooden spoon or the belt are akin to
the Roman lictor's fasces - symbols of parental authority, and rarely
used. Parents are the best placed to raise their children in love and
the discipline they see fit. Governments and the UN ought to butt out.